Supreme Court of India
STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.versusBILASH CHANDRA OJHA
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 419
- Decided
- 27 March 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by not considering the employer's status as an industry, the nature of the termination versus abandonment, and the proper computation of days worked, and therefore set aside their orders and remitted the case for fresh determination.
Summary
Bilash Chandra Ojha, a compositor engaged on a casual basis by a printing press of the Orissa Government's Agricultural Department, was terminated in October 1981. He claimed the termination was illegal under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, asserting that he had worked more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year and was therefore entitled to reinstatement with back wages. The Labour Court found he had indeed worked over 240 days, held that the mandatory provisions of Section 25F were not complied with, and ordered reinstatement without back wages; the High Court upheld this decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that neither the Labour Court nor the High Court examined crucial issues such as whether the employer qualifies as an "industry" under the Act, whether the worker had actually been terminated or had abandoned his work, and the correct calculation of days worked. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of these aspects.
Issues considered
- Whether the Agricultural Department of the Government of Orissa constitutes an "industry" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Whether the termination of a casual worker who has worked more than 240 days in a calendar year is illegal under Section 25F of the Act.
- Whether the worker voluntarily abandoned his employment, thereby negating entitlement to relief.
- Whether the Labour Court and High Court correctly applied Sections 25F and 25(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act in ordering reinstatement.
- Whether the worker is entitled to reinstatement with back wages.
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 10, s. 12, s. 25(1), s. 25F
Subjects
labour lawterminationcasual workerIndustrial Disputes ActSection 25Freinstatementregularisationindustry definition
Judgment
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 1219
STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. A
v.
BILASH CHANDRA OJHA
Civil Appeal No. 1966 of 2009
MARCH 27, 2009
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,
JJ.)
Labour Law - Termination - Of casual worker - Labour
Court directed re-instatement - Order upheld by High Court - C
On appeal, held: Both Labour Court and High Court failed to
consider relevant aspects - Matter remitted to High Court for
decision afresh - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- ss. 25F and 251.
Respondent-workman, engaged on casual basis,
was terminated from service. The Labour Court directed o
his re-instatement. The order was upheld by the High
Court. Hence the instant appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Neither the Labour Court nor the High Court E
considered the relevant aspects like whether the
concerned Department was an Industry and that whether
there was any scope for regularization Y{hen admittedly
the Labour Court found that the respondent was engaged
on casual basis. The other question was whether there F
was any termination or whether the respondent had
abandoned the work. These factors apparently have not
been considered. Further, the question whether the
respondent had worked for more than 240 days in a
calendar year has also not been considered in the proper
perspective. That being so, the impugned order of the G
High Court cannot be maintained and is set aside. The
matter is· remitted to the High Court to consider the
relevant aspects afresh. (Para - 5) [1222-C-E]
1219 H
1220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.
A CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1966
of 2009
From the Judgement and Order dated 22.06.2005 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in O.J.C. No. 13108 of
B 1997.
Shibashish Mishra, for the Appellants.
C.K. Sucharita, for the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
c DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court dismissing the
D writ petitions filed by the appellants. In the Writ Petitions filed by
the appellants the challenge was to the order passed by the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court in l.D. Case No. 71 of 1988.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
E The industrial dispute was initiated by the respondent
workman, inter alia, challenging the termination of his service.
Conciliation having failed, the State Government in exercise of
the powers conferred upon it under Section 10 read with Section
12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') referred
F the following dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The
reference read as follows:
"Whether, the termination of Sri Bilash Chandra Ojha,
Compositor from service by the management of M/s.
Information and Publication Printing Press, Krushi
G Sambada Sarabaraha Sanstha in November, 1981 is legal
and/or justified? If not to what relief Sri Ojha is entitled?
The case of the workman before the Labour Court was
that he was engaged as a Compositor by the Management from
H 14.3.1980 till 10.10.1981. He asserted that as statutory
STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. V. BILASH 1221
CHANDRA OJHA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
provisions of Section 25 F of the Act having not been complied A
with the order of termination of his service was unjust, illegal
and he was entitled to reinstatement in service with full back
wages.
The management appeared before the Labour Court and
B
filed a written statement admitting the fact that the workman was
engaged under it but then took a stand that he had voluntarily
abandoned his service and, as such, he was not entitled to any
· relief. It was also pleaded that the appellant is not an industry
and, therefore, the Act had no application. It was also pleaded
that the claim of the workman of having worked for more than c
..
240 days was without any basis. The workman had appeared
at a test for selection, but was not successful.
The labour court found that the workman worked
) continuously for more than 240 days in the calendar year D
preceding the date of termination of the service. Therefore, the
mandatory provisions of Section 25-1 of the Act were not
complied with and, therefore, the termination was unjust and
illegal. Therefore, the Labour court directed reinstatement but
without back wages. The Award was assailed by the appellants
E
in a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the same holding
that the conclusion of the Labour Court that the workman had
;.
worked for more than 240 days, was based on available material.
Additionally, the mandatory provisions of Section 25{F) were
not complied with.
F
3. In support of the appeal learned counsel for theappellant
submitted that various stands taken by the appellant have not
been considered. Basic stand was taken before the Labour
Court that the appellant is not an industry. That question has not
\'
. been decided. The Labour Court had directed and held that G
though the respondent was engaged on casual basis, he
deserves to be regularized. Further stand of the appellants that
he had abandoned the work has not been considered also. It is
pointed out that the Conciliation Officer categorically recorded
while holding that there was failure of conciliation that a test
H
1222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 4 S.C.R.
A was held in February, 1982 where the respondent had appeared
and was unsuccessful. It was also noted that the respondent
had not worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year,
and he was engaged only as a casual labourer and had
abandoned the job and was not thrown out employment as
B claimed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
submitted that the Labour Court and the High Court have taken
note of the relevant aspects and there is no scope for any •
interference.
c
5. We find that neither the Labour court nor the High Court
considered the relevant aspects like whether the Agricultural
Department of the Government of Orissa is an Industry and that
whether there was any scope for being regularised when
0 admittedly the Labour court found that the respondent was
engaged on casual basis. The other question was whether there
was any termination or whether the respondent had abandoned
the work. These factors apparently have not been considered.
Further the question whether the respondent had worked for
E more than 240 days in a calendar year has also not been
considered in the proper perspective. That being so, the
impugned order cannot be maintained and is set aside. The
matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the relevant "'
aspects afresh.
6. The appeal is allowed.
8.8.8. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "labour law"Sign in to search